Far left - US/UK definition

Yeah, that's sort of what I was getting at. It isn't very enlightening to say that Turner is "left of Faith" and "right of me". We get a clearer perspective if we compare him to society as a whole. Unfortunately, we can't seem to agree on what "left" means in terms of ideas.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, we can't seem to agree on what "left" means in terms of ideas.

---

Heh. That's what I was hoping for when this thread began (and the previous one as well). Even if there were no agreement, it would be interesting to find out just what people think when they self-identify as "left" vs "right". I foresee another attempt at a PNT when this thread finally runs its course.

Obviously you and others here just don't care at all about determining the criteria for the positions on the right, you just want to ridicule them. That's the main problem with this thread. From your point of view the right has no basis for any of its judgments. End of subject.

You like the other liberal/lefties here just continue with the vague generalizations and ridicule instead of making any attempt to spell out the criteria for your views. So big deal you don't think Ted Turner is all that far left, the point is to try to say what makes the difference. I don't see any interest in objectivity from the leftists here.As for American parochiality I'm sure it's true, but if this site were based in Canada or the UK instead of the US I'm sure we'd be more conscious of the international context. There are an awful lot of Canadians and Brits on this site, almost more than Americans it seems at times.

Neither statement is enlightening. Turner is associated with certain ideas I consider leftist that were identified in my post, and probably many others that weren't identified. That's the beginning of an objective statement about what's left vs right. "Left of Faith" is meaningless since you haven't even tried to spell out an objective description of what you think "Faith" believes and if you did you might be wrong anyway. And what's the use of comparing anybody to "society as a whole" if we don't know how to define the ideas that "society as a whole" might happen to have, and how nutty is it to determine the meaning of anything by what's in fashion at the moment anyway? Your comments are simply meaningless. Or right, but a start has been made in various posts. But nobody seems to care really and I'm losing interest too.

Actually, this discussion would never happen among Canadians. We discuss specific issues and/or policies - usually with reference to the political parties' official stances.Abstract labels such as "left" or "right" seldom come up.That's why it amuses me when Americans try to "categorize" issues in terms of left and right. I may never convince you that my leftist ideas are "right", but maybe you'll eventually understand that the labels are meaningless.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The thread is about what the terms mean. If they are meaningless to you then it appears there's not much you can contribute to the topic.

Exactly. As I have said, no "objective description" of left or right is possible.When I say "left of Faith", I mean what you have described as "leftist", not anything objective. Again, those terms can not be defined objectively. I was referring to what Chiroptera and I both perceive the ideas of "society as a whole" to be. If I had been talking to you, I would not have suggested that we were in agreement. Thank you. Coming from you, I take that as a great compliment.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

hey! no! excuse me.i showed you something on the far left. see the thread title? the idea is that we are going to try to establish the range of the mainstream philosophies, and the find the middle ground between the two.

---

אָרַח

Hi faith, Let's leave aside the question of why fox might be politically inclined to assault Ted Turner, and instead let's concentrate on the statement made by Turner which you have said makes him "Anti-Israel".First of all, it's worth pointing out that being Anti-Israel isn't, in and off itself, a leftist position. The right wing (I'm using Euro-terminology here, referring to both Democrats and Republicans) have used Israel as a convenient military surrogate in the middle east for a long time. The contemporary right-wing policies of israel are strongly associated with the policies of the contermporary US governing party. But please don't think that leftists are anti-Israel. The Labour party in the UK was filled with pro-Israeli members a few decades ago, and there is (obviously) a strong historic Jew-Left connection starting before Marx. I think we should be clear here, and point out that being against israeli policies in the middle east doesn't make one "anti-israel". If that were the case, all left wing israelis would be "anti israel" as well. That's clearly not the case.That said, is there anything in the statement by Ted Turner that is anti-Israel? He said "The Palestinians are fighting with human suicide bombers, that's all they have. The Israelis...they've got one of the most powerful military machines in the world. The Palestinians have nothing".that isn't an anti-israel comment. It's a statement of fact. The Palestinians have indeed got nothing (no army, no police force) to stand up against the sophisticated military machine of israel. All they have is sticks, stones, guns and suicide bombers. The sticks stones and guns have proven ineffective against israeli attacks, and suicide bombers are considered by some but by no means all palestinians as a valid form of weaponry. Can you explain where the factual error or bias is in Turner's statement? Where's the bias, faith? That isn't an anti-israel statement, it's a statement of fact.What about Israel being guilty of terrorism? Well, first of all, there's nothing in the quoted statement that even suggests Turner believes this, apart from the commentary by fox. But the idea that israel is guilty of terrorism isn't particularly insane, and it isn't particularly left wing either. Israel currently uses collective reprisals against the entire Palestinian community, which is terrorism by any reasonable definition. To say so is not bias, it's a documented fact. In what way is that a left wing suggestion? It might be a good analogy, it might not, or it might just be Turner's attempt at propaganda, but it says nothing about the politics of economic redistribution, which is the meat and potatoes of the left. All it is saying is that fox is closely tied to the political aims of the bush administration. Maybe true, maybe not. Again, why is this a leftwing bias? It appears to be a description of Turner's personal religious beliefs rather than a political statement. Is it rabidly leftwing to suggest that the exclusiveness of religion works against civilized principles of tolerance? What is left wing about using one's vast personal fortune to further one's own political agenda?Faith, you seem to be saying that "left wing" is anybody who you don't agree with.Mick

Think again. The OP says:

quote:

---

What is far left as defined in the US?

---

"As defined in the US" is subjective. The whole point of this thread is about the subjective differences between "left" and "right" between the US and the rest of the world.(As for who has what to contribute - as always, I leave that assessment to the intelligent members of the board. )

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

facts are leftist.

---

אָרַח

Hello, Faith.Although your post wasn't a reply to me, it does include a part of a quote from my so I am taking the liberty of responding.

quote:

---

Turner is associated with certain ideas I consider leftist that were identified in my post, and probably many others that weren't identified.

---

Again, it is all very well and good to determine that some ideas are leftist and others are from the right, but I don't find a simple classification of individual items to be very interesting -- at least not unless the are evidence of some sort of deeper pattern. In other words, what I would be interested in is why people find some views as left and why people categorize some views as right.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 23-Jul-2005 11:26 PM

Hi, Ringo.

quote:

---

Actually, this discussion would never happen among Canadians. We discuss specific issues and/or policies - usually with reference to the political parties' official stances.

---

Well, we really aren't discussing specific issues here. We are (I think) discussing what particular people use as the organizing principles in forming their conclusions and opinions (as well as determining the reliability of their information sources).That said, it is very true that here in the US, we are not very adept at engaging in thoughtful, well-reasoned discussions regarding political or social issues. Labels like "left" are "right" are mainly used to distinguished "true" ideas from "false" ones without having to actually dig into their logical and factual merits -- a task that Americans are, in general, neither educated enough nor well enough informed to perform.

arachnophilia, I think you have hit the nail on the head.I want to talk about media in the UK versus the US.In the UK, newspapers are categorised as either "broadsheet" or "tabloid". This distinction orginally came from the size of the paper on which they are printed (broadsheets are large A3-size newspapers that will cover most of your upper body when you open them to read, tabloids are small magazine-style A-4 things). Broadsheets are generally considered "real newspapers" while tabloids are widely agreed to be trashy, though that's sometimes a bit unfair.But there is a more meaningful distinction between broadsheets and tabloids.In broadsheets, journalists write in one of two sections: news or commentary.News is supposed to be objective and apolitical. Typically the news section will comprise the first half of the newspaper. Stories are short and stick to known facts, and journalists writing the news reports generally don't give any interpretation of the story they are telling. A good example is provided in the "extreme left" Guardian here. The fact that cops shot an unarmed man five times in the head simply because of his "dress and behaviour" is something that leftist pundits might make a great deal of, but anybody would have to agree that there is no recrimination or judgement or political point-scoring in the story. It's basically a list of known facts, and quotations from interested parties.However, in the commentary section, we get this. Now that is a political article. It's making claims about the direction of future policy, and the policy failures that have led up to this situation. It's providing commentary rather than news. It's an argument, rather than plain reporting of facts. (This is indicated by the word "Comment" in large bold text at the top of the page).This kind of division can be found in all broadsheet newspapers from all areas of the political spectrum. it's what makes broadsheets "quality" rather than "trash".This is the vital difference: tabloids have no division between news reporting and commentary. So in the Daily Mail (a right wing UK tabloid) we get the headline Cowardly Italians 'giving in to the terrorists' . This is not just a reporting of facts, but of value judgements (Italians are cowardly).I would put it to you that all of the mainstream US media is the equivalent of a UK tabloid. US citizens do not understand how useful it can be to distinguish between news and commentary. Instead, they get a commentated news service.To get an idea of the difference, consider the Daily Mail Headline (Cowardly Italians 'giving in to the terrorists' ) in comparison to the Guardian headline on the same story (Inter Milan cancel England tour amid safety fearsThe tabloid headline is commentary. The broadsheet headline is fact. That makes all the difference. It's why the Guardian is a newspaper respected by people with very diverse political opinions, while the Daily Mail (and US mainstream media, which follows a similar track) is widely derided.Hope this helps!MickThis message has been edited by mick, 07-23-2005 07:37 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 07-23-2005 07:41 PM